{"id":43631,"date":"2007-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007"},"modified":"2015-02-22T21:30:30","modified_gmt":"2015-02-22T16:00:30","slug":"jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 3224 of 2006(C)\n\n\n1. JOSE, S\/O.POULOSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. JOHNSON, S\/O.LAZAR,\n\n3. VARGHESE, S\/O.KUNHUVAREED,\n\n4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :04\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n\n\n                    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n\n                          Crl.R.P. No. 3224 OF 2006 C\n\n                    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n\n                      Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007\n\n\n                                      O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
               In this revision filed under section 397 read with section 401<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.   the   revision   petitioner   challenges   the   order   dated   14.8.2006<\/p>\n
(styled   as   a   notice)   passed   by   the   1st  respondent   Revenue   Divisional<\/p>\n
Officer\/Executive Magistrate, Thrissur, directing the revision petitioner to<\/p>\n
discontinue   the   piggery   conducted   by   him   in   his   property   situated   in<\/p>\n
Kaiparambu   Grama   Panchayat   without   a   licence   and   in   a   manner<\/p>\n
causing public nuisance to the residents of that locality.<\/p>\n
       2.      As per a mass petition signed by respondents 2 and 3 and<\/p>\n
others the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur was moved on 9.5.2006<\/p>\n
alleging that the revision petitioner herein and others were rearing more<\/p>\n
than   100   porks   and   pigs   in   their   property   in   an   unhygienic   and<\/p>\n
unscientific manner causing a nuisance to the public and the residents<\/p>\n
of   that   area.     The   said   mass   petition   was  made   over   to   the   Revenue<\/p>\n
Divisional   Officer\/Executive   Magistrate,   who   as   per   Annexure-II   order<\/p>\n
dated 7.7.06 (also styled as a notice) called upon the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
and others to appear before him at 11 a.m. on 19.7.2006 for a hearing.<\/p>\n
The revision petitioner appeared and after taking time filed Annexure-III<\/p>\n
objections dated 23.8.2006 denying the allegations and objecting to the<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3224\/06<\/p>\n
                                          : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
proposed   action.     In   the   meanwhile,   on   19.8.2006   the   Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
Thrissur   to   whom   a   copy   of   the   mass   petition   had   been   marked   for<\/p>\n
report submitted a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer stating<\/p>\n
that the allegations in the mass petition were well founded.  Thereupon,<\/p>\n
the   first   respondent   Revenue   Divisional   Officer   passed   the   impugned<\/p>\n
order   prohibiting   the   revision   petitioner   from   conducting   the   piggery<\/p>\n
forthwith. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision.<\/p>\n
       3.      The   learned   counsel   for   respondents   2   and   3   raised   a<\/p>\n
preliminary objection that the impugned order not being a final order but<\/p>\n
only a conditional order passed under section 133(1)(b) Cr.P.C.   is not<\/p>\n
revisable under section 397 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.      I   am   not   inclined   to   accept   the   above   objection   regarding<\/p>\n
the   maintainability   of   the   revision.     The   impugned   order   is   not   a<\/p>\n
conditional   order   the   power   to   pass   which   could   be   located   under<\/p>\n
section 133(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. It virtually partakes the character of a final<\/p>\n
order and hence this revision is perfectly maintainable.<\/p>\n
       5.      A   perusal   of   Annexure-II   order   dated   7.7.2006   as   well   as<\/p>\n
the impugned order dated 14.8.2006 do not show the provision of law<\/p>\n
under which those orders have been passed.   Going  by the nature of<\/p>\n
allegations in the mass petition, what is decidable is that the complaint<\/p>\n
was  one   falling   under   133(1)(b)   Cr.P.C.  alleging   a   public   nuisance  on<\/p>\n
account of the rearing of pigs\/porks by the revision petitioner and others.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3224\/06<\/p>\n
                                           : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
If  so,  the   order  which  the   Executive  Magistrate   ought   to   have  passed<\/p>\n
should have been one falling under Clause (ii) of Section 133(1) Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
and   giving   an   opportunity   to   the   opposite   party   to   appear   before   the<\/p>\n
Magistrate   and   show   cause   why   the   conditional   order   should   not   be<\/p>\n
made   absolute   in   case   he   objected   to   the   said   order.     A   reading   of<\/p>\n
Annexure-2 order  does not indicate that the said order  was passed in<\/p>\n
conformity with the above legal provision.   All that it shows is that the<\/p>\n
opposite party is called for a hearing with reference to the complaint by<\/p>\n
the   residents   of   Kaiparambu   Panchayat   regarding   the   environmental<\/p>\n
pollution.  That is not the form in which a conditional order under section<\/p>\n
133(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. should be worded or passed.  The conditional order<\/p>\n
of that nature should be one to desist from carrying on the trade or to<\/p>\n
remove the trade or a regulation of the trade in such manner as may be<\/p>\n
directed in the order and asking the opposite party to show cause as to<\/p>\n
why the said conditional order should not be made absolute in case he<\/p>\n
is objecting to the conditional order.  Thereafter, the person to whom the<\/p>\n
order is addressed is to appear and show cause against the conditional<\/p>\n
order   in   case   he   is   objecting   to   the   same.     Where   such   person   after<\/p>\n
appearance   before   the   Magistrate   shows   cause   and   objects   to   the<\/p>\n
conditional order the Magistrate is to conduct an enquiry under section<\/p>\n
137   Cr.P.C.     During   such   enquiry,   the   Magistrate   is   to   call   upon   the<\/p>\n
complainant to lead evidence in support of the alleged public nuisance.<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3224\/06<\/p>\n
                                               : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
The   Magistrate   is   also   given  the   power  to   direct   local   investigation   or<\/p>\n
examination by an expert.   In the present case, apart from the fact that<\/p>\n
Annexure-II order as well as the impugned order do not conform to the<\/p>\n
requirement   of   law,   the   impugned   order   is   one   virtually   partaking   the<\/p>\n
character of a final order passed without any enquiry and without taking<\/p>\n
evidence under section 137 Cr.P.C.   Both Annexure-II order as well as<\/p>\n
the   impugned   order   dated   14.8.2006   cannot,   therefore,   be   supported.<\/p>\n
Since   the   revision   is   directed     only   against   impugned   order   dated<\/p>\n
14.8.2006 the same is set aside and the first respondent is directed to<\/p>\n
proceed   afresh   under  Chapter   X   Part   B   Cr.P.C.   strictly  in   accordance<\/p>\n
with law.  Since there was a stay of the impugned order passed by this<\/p>\n
court,   it   is   not   disputed   that   the   piggery   run   by   the   petitioner   is   still<\/p>\n
functioning.     The   first   respondent   shall   after   hearing   both   sides   pass<\/p>\n
final orders under section 138 Cr.P.C. either directing discontinuance of<\/p>\n
the piggery or continuance of the same subject to such conditions as he<\/p>\n
may deem fit safeguarding the health of the residents and ensuring that<\/p>\n
the   piggery   does   not   cause   any   public   nuisance   in   that   locality.     But<\/p>\n
such final orders shall be passed only after taking evidence and strictly<\/p>\n
in   accordance   with   law.     Final   orders   shall   be   passed   by   the   first<\/p>\n
respondent within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
order.   Until then, the revision petitioner will be entitled to maintain the<\/p>\n
piggery   without   giving   room   for   any   complaint   of   public   nuisance   and<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.No.3224\/06<\/p>\n
                                            : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
ensuring   that   the   same   does   not   emanate   any   objectionable   stink   or<\/p>\n
other   nuisance   to   the   local   residents.     It   is   made   clear   that   the<\/p>\n
continuance of the piggery will be subject to final orders to be passed as<\/p>\n
above.     It   shall   also   be   lawful   for   the   Magistrate   to   pass   appropriate<\/p>\n
prohibitory   orders   under   section   142   Cr.P.C.   if   such   a   course   is<\/p>\n
warranted but only after hearing both sides.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       This revision is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                          (V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
aks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl Rev Pet No. 3224 of 2006(C) 1. JOSE, S\/O.POULOSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, … Respondent 2. JOHNSON, S\/O.LAZAR, 3. VARGHESE, S\/O.KUNHUVAREED, 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-22T16:00:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T16:00:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1068,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-22T16:00:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-22T16:00:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T16:00:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007"},"wordCount":1068,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007","name":"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-22T16:00:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-revenue-divisional-officer-on-4-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jose vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 4 July, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}